Icao manual on Low-level Wind Shear and Turbulence Proposed Changes to the 1



Download 89.88 Kb.
Date conversion02.02.2017
Size89.88 Kb.







METWSG/1-SN No. 6

Appendix E



Revised






APPENDIX E
ICAO Manual on Low-level Wind Shear and Turbulence

Proposed Changes to the 1st Edition

Provisions for international civil aviation are adopted by a body of the United Nations, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is located in Montréal. These provisions are located in 18 annexes depending on the subject. Annex 3 describes the meteorological service for international air navigation and corresponding international standards and recommended practices. One topic, wind shear warnings (section 7.4), references the Manual on Low-level Wind Shear and Turbulence document (doc 9817) as a guide on the subject of wind shear.


The previous document, Circular on Wind Shear, was published in 1987 at a time when wind shear was considered one of the greatest safety hazards to aviation. Moreover, wind shear detection systems were being developed and not mature at the time of this publication. Nevertheless, many fundamentals on the subject of wind shear were known and published in this Circular. During the past two decades, wind shear systems were deployed and matured, which resulted in an updated document on wind shear. This new document is the first edition of the Manual on Low-level Wind Shear and Turbulence published in 2005. Replacement pages to the first edition of the Manual will be issued next.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) weather products branches (AJW-144 and AJW-14A) under the guidance of the FAA Terminal Services (AJT) has over a decade of experience in maintaining various wind shear systems. Currently, wind shear systems provide wind shear alerts at 1210 U.S. airports. These FAA branches are honored to provide wind shear information for the replacement pages to the first edition of the Manual on Low-level Wind Shear and Turbulence. Wind shear and turbulence information was also gathered from various organizations, which include MIT/LL, NSSL, NWS, UCAR, the University of Oklahoma, Northwest Airlines, Lockheed Martin Coherent Technologies, and ENAV Italy.
Nations acquiring wind shear systems will continue to benefit from the guidance provided by the ICAO through this document. Selecting the most effective wind shear system will increase aviation safety and contribute to cost savings to aviation services and airlines. Therefore, there is a mutual interest between the ICAO and the FAA in keeping this Manual current.
Any questions in regards to the suggested changes to the manual can be sent to: chris.keohan@faa.gov

(405) 954-0236

Thank you for this opportunity.

Christopher Keohan

Meteorologist, FAA AJW-144

1ICAO Manual on Low-level Wind Shear and Turbulence

2Proposed Changes to the 1st Edition



Italics are used for quoting the text in the ICAO Manual on Low-level Wind Shear and Turbulence.

The spelling in this document is U.K. English.


Subjects of the proposed changes are given below:
iii. Worldwide wind shear accidents

iv. Forward-looking wind shear systems

2.1.3 Wind shear in terms of headwind/tailwind components

3.5.24 Maximum tornado wind speed measurement

Figure 3-23 Worldwide wind shear accidents distribution

3.8.2 Wake vortex avoidance systems

5.1.10 Microburst threshold

5.1.12 LLWAS-NE and LLWAS-RS coverage and nomenclature

5.1.13 TDWR – LLWAS-NE Integration

5.1.14 Pressure sensors and LLWAS

5.1.16 SODAR – list of countries with operational use

5.1.19 TDWR scan strategy

5.1.20 TDWR MET algorithm development / headwind gain

5.1.21 Add section on TDWR RDA

5.1.22 TDWR rain attenuation

5.1.25 LLWAS-NE – system count

5.1.28-29 Add section on WSP

5.1.30 TWIP status / NWA use of TWIP

5.1.31 ITWS deployment

5.1.34 TCWF change of resolution / base lined

5.1.35 ITWS GF mosaic

5.1.36 ITWS MB prediction

Table 5-3 ITWS products

5.1.38 ITWS GF product update

5.1.42 LIDAR – Germany does not have an operational system for wind shear alerts

5.1.42 LIDAR – add new information – Hong Kong, Japan, U.S.

5.1.43 UHF Côte D’Azur Airport / Add section on Juneau Airport Wind System

5.1.48 F-factor equation sign error

5.1.51 Forward looking wind shear systems – % of fleet within operational requirements

5.2.13 Wind shear scale length for ground-based systems

5.3.15 Original LLWAS wind shear alerting


Page iii Worldwide wind shear accidents – 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: From 1964-1983, low-level wind shear was cited in at least 28 large transport aircraft accidents/incidents that together resulted in over 500 fatalities and 200 injuries.
Wind shear accidents have occurred post 1983 (i.e. Dallas and Charlotte).
Option 1: Use updated ICAO accident/incident reporting data bank.
Option 2: Use the Aviation Safety Network (exclusive service of Flight Safety Foundation) - total number of commercial wind shear / downdraught accident deaths since 1943 is 1438 (note this is not just large transport aircraft).

The web address is



http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=WXW

This site uses various sources such as the NTSB.


Suggested text:
Since 1943, low-level wind shear contributed to over 1 400 fatalities worldwide.
Option 3: Combine the ICAO accident/incident reporting data bank and the Aviation Safety Network.

Page iv Forward looking wind shear systems – 3rd paragraph…Similar advances have also produced forward-looking wind shear detection/warning systems to meet the operational requirements for airborne equipment.
In the early-mid 1990s, airlines in the United States expected to have forward looking wind shear systems on 40% of all turbine-powered airplanes by 2007 (source: The Integrated Wind Shear Systems Cost Benefit and Deployment Study written by Martin Marietta – 1994). According to one major airline, only 12% (44/376) of all turbine-powered airplanes have forward-looking wind shear systems (source: Tom Fahey, NWA)

New information: Two major airlines and all regional airlines are well below the expected equipage rates. Used data from a recent report (Weber, Cho, Robinson and Evans, 2007: Analysis of Operational Alternatives to the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), MIT/LL, FAA Project Report ATC-332) and information on regional airline sizes. There is a ceiling of acquisition because regional airlines are largely comprised of regional jets which currently can not acquire forward-looking wind shear systems due to their size. This ceiling is approximately 2/3 of all aircraft and should be adjusted to the growth of regional airlines in relation to major airlines.


Option 1: Leave the text alone. It is a factual statement.
Option 2: Mention the current deployment of forward-looking wind shear systems. A common misconception is that the majority of the major airlines fleet is equipped with forward-looking wind shear systems.
Suggested text:
Similar advances have also produced forward-looking wind shear detection/warning systems to meet the operational requirements for airborne equipment; however, at the time of this writing, the deployment of such systems is much lower than expected for some airlines.

2.1.3 last sentence: Moreover, calculations of wind shear over the airport must take into account the orientation of the runways, which means resolving all shear vectors to the runway headings, thereby providing shears in the form of headwind/tailwind components.
For TDWR, ITWS and WSP, a microburst (divergent) type wind shear is considered symmetric, which means the resulting wind shear is automatically represented in terms of runway orientation. The gust front (convergent) type wind shear, however, does not take into account runway orientation. For example, if a north south oriented gust front whose shear is 40K+ intercepts runway 18-36, this runway will receive a 40K+ wind shear alert. An aircraft will experience a cross wind on approach to this runway, but not a headwind. At airports equipped with an LLWAS-RS, a wind shear alert gain is expressed in terms of the runway orientation. The LLWAS-NE provides a gust front product gain oriented to the runway; however, it is integrated with TDWR and/or ITWS, which results in a matrix of solutions in the table below.


Wind Shear System

ARENA description

Gain Oriented to RWY

LLWAS-RS




Yes

TDWR




No

ITWS




No

WSP




No

TDWR/LLWAS-NE

Dual coverage – integration

(Source LLWAS-NE)



Yes

TDWR/LLWAS-NE

TDWR coverage only

No

ITWS/LLWAS-NE

Dual coverage – integration

(Source both systems)



Sometimes

ITWS/LLWAS-NE

ITWS coverage only

No

In summary, based on the above table, wind shear gain alerts are expressed in terms of runway orientation at 40 U.S. airports. At 9 U.S. airports, some gain alerts are oriented to the runway and some are not. At 71 U.S. airports, the gain alerts are not oriented to the runway. This may explain why sometimes pilots do not verify many weak wind shear gains.


Suggested text after last sentence in 2.1.3:
Many wind shear detection systems (TDWR, ITWS and WSP) do not resolve the gust front wind shear with reference to the runway headings. For these systems, the wind shear value is the gust front gain, which may be very different from the airspeed increase encountered by aircraft. The wind shear detection systems that resolve the gust front wind shear with reference to the runway headings are the LLWAS-RS and LLWAS-NE. An LLWAS-NE is collocated with TDWR and/or ITWS and as a result of the integration techniques, some wind shear gain values are in relation to the runway headings, and some are not.

3.5.24 The highest wind speed measured in a tornado was 270 km/h (135kt); however, the analysis of tornado damage to engineered structures where structural strength is known, the analysis of films of the motion of debris rotating in the tornado, and the study of Doppler wind speed spectra indicate that maximum wind speeds approach or exceed 400 km/h (200 kt).
Suggested text:
The highest wind speed measured in a tornado was 484 km/h  16 km/h (261 kt  9 kt), which was measured by the University of Oklahoma Doppler on Wheels in Bridgecreek, Oklahoma on 3 May 1999 (reference: J. Wurman et al., 2007: Low Level Winds in Tornadoes and Potential Catastrophic Tornado Impacts in Urban Areas. Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol 88, No. 1 pgs 31-46 – currently in press). This instantaneous measurement represents the reflecting particle speed at 32 m as opposed to a typical anemometer type measurement, which represents the 3-s average air molecule speed at 10 m. The variability of the radar measurement is expressed with the term 16 km/h (9 kt).

Figure 3-23 World distribution of accidents/incidents in which microburst have been confirmed or suspected (from McCarthy and Wilson, 1984, and adapted by ICAO)
Wind shear accidents have occurred post 1984 (i.e. Dallas and Charlotte).
Option 1: Update the plot using updated ICAO accident/incident reporting data bank.
Option 2: Update the plot using the locations of commercial wind shear / downdraught accidents since 1943 according to the Aviation Safety Network (exclusive service of Flight Safety Foundation).

The source web address is



http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=WXW

This site uses various sources such as the NTSB.



World distribution of wind shear accidents/incidents using the Aviation Safety Network database.

Option 3: Create plot(s) that combine the ICAO accident/incident reporting data bank and the Aviation Safety Network.



3.8.2 This section is on Wake Vortex Avoidance Systems (WVAS). At the end of the paragraph you may add recent works by Steven Lang et al. (FAA&MITRE&MIT/LL) and LMI Government Consulting, a non-profit strategic consulting firm.
Suggested text at end of paragraph:
For example, potential air traffic capacity gains of 14% and 23% at Saint Louis and Detroit can be achieved by increasing the number the departures on closely spaced parallel runways (CSPR), runways that are less than 2 500 ft apart, when wind conditions are favourable (reference: Lang, Steven (FAA), and C.R. Lunsford, J.A. Tittsword, W.W. Cooper, L. Audenaerd, J. Sherry (MITRE), R.E. Cole (MIT/LL), 2005: An Analysis of Potential Capacity Enhancements Through Wind Dependent Wake Turbulence Procedures. 6th USA/Europe Seminar on Air Traffic Management Research and Development, Baltimore). Capacity gains are achieved when the wind is above an airport specific crosswind threshold thereby allowing aircraft on the upwind parallel runway to depart without wake spacing constraints imposed by the downwind parallel runway. Therefore, capacity gains are greatest when aircraft types of Heavy Jet or B757 depart on the downwind parallel runway. A wind forecast accuracy of 5 minutes is needed to conservatively meet the wake vortex spacing safety requirement in case the runway status changes from wake independent to wake dependent. For planning purposes, a 10-20 minute forecast of the crosswind threshold is desired. A display tool to indicate the wake independent / dependent status is being developed with the input of the Saint Louis air traffic controllers. The goal is to develop and refine this wind dependent wake turbulence procedure and deploy this system at numerous high traffic CSPR airports within the next 10 years. Improved wake vortex spacing techniques has been economically quantified to a potential savings of $952 million from 2002 to 2015 at Saint Louis and $9.6 billion at 18 airports at only a cost of $7 million and $64 million, respectively. (Source: Business Case Analysis for NASA Wake Vortex Technology, Robert V. Hemm, Jeremy M. Eckhause, Virginia Stouffer, Dou Long, Jing Hees, Technology Assessment and Resource Analysis Group, 3/1/2004, LMI Report #: NS254T2)
Research continues at CSPR airports in order to increase air traffic capacity at San Francisco, Houston Intercontinental, Frankfurt, and Paris Charles DeGaulle. In the future, LIDAR will be used to determine head wind criteria needed to reduce spacing at London Heathrow that may allow time spacing to replace distance spacing. A combination of all LIDAR wake vortex research could result in a new matrix of aircraft type that is not based on weight only, but may involve other aircraft attributes such as wingspan.
Web:

http://www-mip.onera.fr/projets/WakeNet2-Europe/fichiers/pastEvents2004/frankfurt2004/fichiers/W1-1-Hemm_KeyNote.pdf#search=%222002-2015%20Benefit%3ACost%20Ratios%20SFO%20STL%22

Publication Web: http://www.lmi.org/publications/allreports.aspx?filtertype=4&search=Wake%20and%20Vortex



5.1.10 3rd to last sentence: A headwind loss of more than 60 km/h (30 kt) over 4 km is indicated as a microburst.
A microburst is 30 knot loss or greater, therefore, “more than” can be replaced by “at least”.
Suggested text:
A headwind loss of at least 60 km/h (30 kt) over 4 km is indicated as a microburst.

5.1.12 4th sentence: Originally, five or six anemometers at each aerodrome were involved, but the latest enhancement programme will increase this number to cover 5.5 km (3 NM) beyond the runways, which is a major logistical task.
Not all LLWAS-NE and LLWAS-RS sites cover to 3 NM beyond the runways.
Suggested text:
…will increase this number to cover up to 5.5 km (3 NM) beyond the runways…

5.1.12 end of paragraph: Earlier, the enhanced system was referred to as the LLWAS relocation and sustainment (LLWAS-RS), although LLWAS-NE is being used in the literature to denote “network expansion”. Initially, the full enhancements will be applied to eight major United States aerodromes where TDWRs are installed (see below).
The upgrade to the LLWAS carries two names, LLWAS-NE for an LLWAS collocated with TDWR and LLWAS-RS for an LLWAS not collocated with TDWR. The full enhancements were applied to the nine major United States aerodromes where TDWRs are installed. As a note: the LGA LLWAS-NE is integrated with the JFK TDWR.

New information: LLWAS-NE at Juneau was not included in the last proposal. This LLWAS-NE is the only one not collocated with TDWR and was commissioned in 2006. It is called an LLWAS-NE because the hardware is the same as those collocated with a TDWR.


Suggested text:
The enhanced system is referred to as the LLWAS relocation and sustainment (LLWAS-RS) at airports without a TDWR and as the LLWAS Network Expansion (LLWAS-NE) at airports with a TDWR, except for Juneau, Alaska. There are 109 LLWAS-NE systems and 40 LLWAS-RS systems in the United States.

5.1.13 The enhancement (refers to LLWAS-RS and LLWAS-NE) will not be restricted to the siting or addition of anemometers. As mentioned above, new technology such as sonic anemometers will replace the customary vane anemometers. These new sensors have a much better reliability and maintainability as being solid-state instruments. The output displays in ATC units are also being upgraded to ribbon display terminals, which permit the replacement of earlier sector alerts by runway-oriented wind shear and microburst alerts (MBAs). Furthermore, the additional sensor sites can be accommodated in the ATC displays at Denver International Airport, which can display output from 32 sensors. The LLWAS-RS will use off-the-shelf components wherever possible; 40 operational systems and 3 support systems will be installed. Where both LLWAS-RS and TDWR are installed, their output will be integrated for issuance of warnings. This important development is detailed in 5.1.43.
Change future tense to past tense. Also, 2nd to the last sentence: an LLWAS that generates wind shear alerts and is collocated with TDWR is called an LLWAS-NE.
Suggested text:
The enhancement was not restricted to the siting or addition of anemometers. As mentioned above, new technology such as sonic anemometers replaced the customary vane anemometers. These new sensors have a much better reliability and maintainability as being solid-state instruments. The output displays in ATC units were upgraded to ribbon display terminals, which permit the replacement of earlier sector alerts by runway-oriented wind shear and microburst alerts (MBAs). Furthermore, the additional sensor sites were accommodated in the ATC displays at Denver International Airport, which can display output from 32 sensors. The LLWAS-RS and LLWAS-NE used off-the-shelf components wherever possible; operational systems include 40 LLWAS-RS, 109 LLWAS-NE and several support systems. The LLWAS-NE and TDWR are integrated for issuance of wind shear warnings. This important development is detailed in 5.1.43.

5.1.14 Pressure sensors (e.g. microbarographs) have also been tested as perimeter instruments to detect the associated “pressure jump” due to the cooler air of gust fronts, etc., and, in some circumstances, have detected an approaching gust front up to three minutes ahead of surface wind sensors. Combined surface wind/pressure sensors have been tested and may eventually be used to augment the LLWAS system.
Presently, pressure sensors are not used with the LLWAS to help detect approaching gust fronts.
Suggested text for last sentence:
Combined surface wind/pressure sensors have been tested but are currently not used to augment the LLWAS.

5.1.16 3rd sentence: SODAR is used operationally at aerodromes in several locations including Canada; Denmark; France; Hong Kong, China; and Sweden.
SODAR is also being used in Palermo, Italy. Therefore, Italy can be added to the list of countries above. (Source: Antonio Dal Muto and Salvatore Zappala – ENAV Italy)
Suggested text:
SODAR is used operationally at aerodromes in several locations including Canada; Denmark; France; Hong Kong, China; Italy; and Sweden.

5.1.19 page 5-7: The technical characteristics of the TDWR are as follows:

c) PPI volume scans over airport every 2.5 minutes, with surface scans every minute;
As a result of the fairly new 360-degree hazardous scan strategy (to minimize the wear on the antenna), the volume time increased to 3 minutes.
Suggested text:
c) PPI volume scans over airport every 3 minutes, with surface scans every minute;

5.1.20 1st sentence: The TDWR MET algorithms were developed by researchers at NCAR.

Suggested text:


The TDWR microburst detection algorithm was developed by MIT/LL while the TDWR gust front detection algorithm was jointly developed by MIT/LL and NSSL. Display development and scientific evaluation of the algorithms were conducted by NCAR. (source: Dr. Mark Weber, MIT/LL)

5.1.20 last sentence: The headwind gain across the gust front is estimated and
Again the gust front algorithm for TDWR, WSP and ITWS does not produce a headwind gain in relation to the runway heading, it is simply the gust front gain.
Suggested text:
The gain across the front is estimated and…

5.1.21 This paragraph explains TDWR data quality problems. Include at the end of the paragraph a future TDWR upgrade that is currently being developed.
Suggested text at the end of the paragraph:
For example, to improve the TDWR data quality, MIT/LL and the FAA are developing the TDWR radar data acquisition (RDA) unit, which will upgrade the receiver and digital signal processing subsystems of the radar (reference: Cho, J. Y. N., G. R. Elkin, and N. G. Parker, 2005: Enhanced radar data acquisition system and signal processing algorithms for the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar, Preprints, 32nd Conf. on Radar Meteorology, Albuquerque, NM, Amer. Meteor. Soc.). This upgrade will allow the utilization of more advanced radar techniques such as pulse phase coding to a multiple-PRT waveform in order to improve range and velocity folding. In addition, clutter suppression will be improved using a wider receiver dynamic range of 105 dB, which will reduce stationary and moving ground clutter. Both the microburst and gust front products will immediately benefit from this future upgrade. In addition, external users such as ITWS and NWS will benefit from these product improvements. Deployment is expected from 2008 – 2011. The TDWR RDA combined with algorithm design changes, RPG capabilities, and other terminal weather information will allow for future wind shear product improvements such as microburst detection with less dependency on storm verification, decreasing the initial gust front time, more frequent gust front detections, head wind gain alerts, and crosswind alerts.

5.1.22 last sentence: Normal rain attenuation from the return signal (from radar antenna to target and back) is flagged by the TDWR software, but even larger signal losses are experienced from rain on the radome itself (up to 20 dB), and research is determining the optimum way for the software to flag this occurrence and automatically lower certain thresholds based on the TDWR reflectivity values.
Suggested text:
The TDWR software calculates normal rain attenuation from the return signal, from radar antenna to target and back, called two-way attenuation. When the two-way attenuation is above 9 dB, the corresponding reflectivity value is flagged, which results in a grey-colour precipitation on the TDWR display. Below this threshold, the precipitation product is presented without adding the calculated attenuation. The ITWS precipitation product, however, does compensate for attenuation.
TDWR radome attenuation caused by a sheet of rain on the radome has been observed to reduce the 6-level precipitation product by 2 levels over the aerodrome (reference: Isaminger, M., E. A. Proseus, 2000: Analysis of the Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) 5-nm Product Suite, 9th Conference on Aviation, Range and Aerospace Meteorology, Orlando, FL, Amer. Meteor. Soc.). TDWR radome attenuation is not accounted for and degrades the TDWR precipitation product. In addition, the base data used by the external users is degraded. Recommendations by Isaminger 2000 include adding the TDWR attenuation to the precipitation product when below the 9 dB threshold and to detect and warn of radome attenuation.
Conformity of attenuation calculations amongst the TDWR and ITWS has been discussed but not implemented. Currently, the TDWR uses attenuation parameters that correspond to embedded thunderstorms in New England, as opposed to a hybrid of parameters that include a southern U.S. environment used by ITWS. As a result, the current attenuation calculations are more aggressive in ITWS than TDWR.

5.1.25 1st sentence: For these reasons, the LLWAS-NE systems were installed first at the eight airports that had TDWR.
The “9th” LLWAS-NE is located at LGA, which is integrated with the JFK TDWR.
Suggested text:
For these reasons, the LLWAS-NE systems were installed first at the nine airports that had TDWR. The tenth and last LLWAS-NE commissioned at Juneau in 2006 is an exception to the rule in that it is not collocated with TDWR.

5.1.28 – 5.1.29: Add section on WSP. This section may be added between 5.1.28 and 5.1.29 where a transition occurs from TDWR/LLWAS integration to the introduction of integrated weather systems. The introduction sentence and the concluding sentence were chosen for this text location.
Suggested text:

Therefore, the FAA has procured 45 TDWRs, 9 of which are integrated with an LLWAS-NE, that serve 46 major airports to enhance the safety and efficiency of operations during convective weather. A hardware and software modification to existing Airport Surveillance Radars (ASR-9) - the Weather Systems Processor (WSP) - provides similar capabilities at a much lower cost, thus allowing the FAA to extend its protection envelope to medium density airports and airports where thunderstorm activity is less frequent. The FAA procured 34 WSPs to support the safety and efficiency of the NAS.


The WSP provides Doppler estimates of low-altitude winds that are used to automatically alert controllers and pilots to the presence of microburst and gust front wind shear phenomena. The WSP also generates six-level weather reflectivity maps that are free of anomalous propagation (AP) induced ground clutter breakthrough. Scan-to-scan tracking of storm cells and gust fronts provides estimates of their velocity, as well as 10- and 20-minute predictions of the future position of gust fronts. The output of the WSP is presented on a graphical situation display (SD) for use by Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) and air traffic control tower (ATCT) supervisors. Tower local controllers are provided wind shear alert messages on alphanumeric, or “ribbon” displays, for relay to pilots verbatim. These displays are similar to those used to depict the output of the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR).
The microburst and gust front product update rates are 30 seconds and 2 minutes, which is faster than the TDWR. The large fan beam of the ASR-9, however, results in a lower wind shear detection rate. The TDWR specification for wind shear loss detection is at least 90% for wind shear 15 kt. The WSP specification for wind shear loss detection is at least 70% (80, 90%) for wind shear 20 kt (30, 40 kt). The lower spatial resolution of the WSP results in a higher false alarm rate than the TDWR. The false alarm rate specification is 20% (15, 10%) for a wind shear loss of at least 20 kt (30, 40 kt). Nevertheless, the WSP provides comparable tactical information on microburst activity and strategic information for managing airspace and runways at medium-density airports.

5.1.29 1st sentence: These developments were not isolated since they developed in the past 15 years, when airport and airspace congestion, and arrival/departure delays began to exercise considerable constraints on the aviation systems around the world, especially in North America and Europe.
Change the introduction to this paragraph for a proper transition.
Suggested text:
The TDWR, LLWAS and WSP all contribute to safety and management of airspace at medium and high-density airports. Airspace efficiency became increasingly important when airport and airspace congestion, and arrival/departure delays began to exercise considerable constraints on the aviation systems around the world, especially in North America and Europe. Continue with second sentence of 5.1.29.

5.1.30 3rd sentence: TWIP is scheduled to be installed at 45 airports in the United States.
Suggested text:
TWIP is installed at 43 of 46 airports in the United States and is currently being tested in Hong Kong.

5.1.30 last sentence: At least one airline stores all TWIP messages so they are accessible to the dispatchers and meteorologists, but it does not uplink to its aircraft messages indicating “no storms within 24 km (15 NM)” and warnings of wind shear of less than 60 km/h (30 kt).
Northwest Airlines wind shear alerts screening is for wind shear alerts less than 60 km/h (30 kt) that are associated with the message “no storms within 24 km (15 NM)”.
Suggested text:
…but it does not uplink to its aircraft messages indicating “no storms within 24 km (15 NM)” and wind shear alerts of less than 60 km/h (30 kt) when no storms are indicated within 24 km (15 NM).

5.1.31 last sentence: Planning of ITWS began in 1991, full-scale development in 1995, with operational deployment in the 2000 to 2004 time frame.
Suggested text:
…with operational deployment through 2009.
FYI: 151 are now commissioned (2 more in 2006, the remaining 19 should be commissioned by 9 more in 2007, 6 more each in 2008 and 2009).

5.1.34 4th sentence: The key attributes of TCWF include frequent updates (every six minutes), high spatial resolution (1-2 km), high resolution in forecast times (every ten minutes) and self-scoring to provide the user with a quantitative measure of its accuracy.
The TCWF updates every five minutes and the TCWF product now has a 1 km resolution everywhere (Source: ITWS Pre-Planned Product Improvement Algorithm Description for Convective Weather Forecast, 22 March 2004, MIT/LL).
Suggested text:
The key attributes of TCWF include frequent updates (every five minutes), high spatial resolution (1 km), high resolution in forecast times (every ten minutes) and self-scoring to provide the user with a quantitative measure of its accuracy.

5.1.34 end of paragraph: TCWF was demonstrated at four airports in 1999-2000 and was well received by users.
Suggested text after the above sentence:
TThe TCWF product wasis being base-lined in 2006 and 2007 and installed in 2006 and 2007.

5.1.34 a) pre-plan severe weather avoidance procedures and avoid ground delays during coordinateon period;
Spelling: change coordinateon to coordination.

5.1.35 last sentence: There could be substantial improvements in forecasting wind shifts due to gust fronts, for example, at these airports if the data from all the Doppler radars in a terminal area could be combined and provided to ATC as a mosaic.
Suggested text:
The gust front product was improved at TRACONs (approach control units) with more than one TDWR by combining the gust front product from the various TDWRs. As a result, forecasting wind shifts due to gust fronts have improved at TRACONs with multiple TDWRs.

5.1.36 2nd to last sentence: The ITWS microburst prediction algorithm provides a two- to three-minute warning of a microburst event, before the TDWR warning is available.
The ITWS microburst prediction algorithm issues a microburst alert (30 kt) only if a wind shear alert (15-25 kt) already exists in the same vicinity.
Suggested text:
The ITWS microburst prediction algorithm provides up to 2minutesat least a 1-minute warning that a particular wind shear will become a microburst.

Table 5-3 Table 5-3. Current ITWS prototype products

Wind Shear Precipitation General

Microburst detection/forecast Thunderstorm Tornado detection

Gust front detection/forecast Thunderstorm motion Lightning

Surface wind shift estimate Extrapolated position LLWAS winds

Timers Thunderstorm cell information Terminal climb/descent winds

Thunderstorm location and severity Pilot text/character graphics message
Suggested text (add these two products under precipitation):

Anomalous propagation

30-60 minute probability of precipitation forecast

and remove the term prototype.



5.1.38 3rd to last sentence – in reference to the gust front product: This information is updated approximately every five minutes.
The ITWS gust front product uses TDWR data as input and since the implementation of the TDWR 360-degree scan strategy, the gust front product update changed to 6 minutes.
Suggested text:
This information is updated approximately every six minutes.

5.1.42 This section is on LIDAR. 2nd to last sentence: In Germany, such a system was developed and is especially suitable for continuous measurement of the wind profile in real time and hence for monitoring many non-convective types of wind shear, such as low-level jet streams31.
Currently, Germany does not have a LIDAR at an aerodrome that provides wind shear alerts (source: Lockheed Martin Coherent Technologies).
Suggested text:
In Germany, such a system was developed and was especially suitable for continuous measurement of the wind profile in real time and hence monitored many non-convective types of wind shear, such as low-level jet streams31. This system, however, is not operational in Germany at the time of this publication.

5.1.42 Add new LIDAR information at the end of the section. Also, suggest that an explanation be given on the Hong Kong LIDAR Windshear Alerting System (LIWAS) with the input being provided directly from Hong Kong. A distinction between alerts issued in the U.S. versus Hong Kong may be included in that section. That is, in the U.S. the wind shear alert location is the 1st encounter of a wind shear along the corridor while in Hong Kong the location is generalized to the corridor. Both express the wind shear intensity as the maximum wind shear intensity expected along the corridor.
Suggested text:
In Hong Kong the LIDAR is mainly used to detect terrain-induced wind shear in the absence of rain. A LIDAR is being acquired at Tokyo Haneda is used to improve the detection of obstacle wind shear caused by large hangars. Both locations have a Doppler radar that detects wind shear associated with rain; however, a supplement system such as the LIDAR is mainly used to detect wind shear not associated with rain.
Another example of using the LIDAR as a complementary wind shear system was recently conducted in the United States. The FAA performed an evaluation of the LIDAR to detect dry wind shear at Las Vegas (LAS) in 2005 (reference: Keohan, Christopher, K. Barr, and S.M. Hannon, 2006: Evaluation of Pulsed Lidar Wind Hazard Detection at Las Vegas International Airport. AMS 12th Conference on Aviation, Range and Aerospace Meteorology, Atlanta). The results of this evaluation showed the advantages of combining LIDAR with the existing TDWR. With algorithm improvements, a LIDAR/TDWR combination could increase the wind shear detection rate from 35% (current LAS TDWR stand alone) to more than 90%. With the proposed TDWR RDA improvements, the TDWR is expected to detect 90% of wet wind shear in the LAS environment. An upgrade to the LIDAR gust front detection would produce a dry wind shear detection rate of greater than 90%. The combination of the two systems is needed because more than half of the wind shear events that occurred during the LIDAR evaluation at LAS were dry and due to thunderstorm outflows. Therefore, an integration of the two systems will yield a probability of at least 90% of detecting all wind shear at LAS, which is the goal of the user community. Other southwestern U.S. locations that have a TDWR or WSP are expected to benefit from a LIDAR.
Before pursuing a national program dealing with this regional issue, the FAA is examining this system further by conducting an Operational Evaluation at Las Vegas during the later half of 2007. This examination will provide the following: a more detailed wind shear analysis by examining all wind shear during the test (such as inversion wind shear), an evaluation from air traffic control supervisors, human factor analysis of the display system, and a system maintenance analysis.; however, funding has not yet been secured for this proposed dry wind shear detection solution.

5.1.43 2nd to last sentence: France also has in operation a VHF wind profiler at Nice Côte D’Azur Airport.
The title of Appendix 5, UHF WIND PROFILER AT THE NICE Côte D’Azur AIRPORT, uses UHF instead of VHF. The wind profiler was also referenced as a UHF profiler in a paper published in Marseille, i.e. ANALYSE OPÉRATIONNELLE DES DONNÉES DU RADAR UHF DE MARIGNANE

L’aéroport de Nice Côte d’Azur possède également un radar UHF



http://www.airmaraix.com/files/Et/2002-MST-RADAR%20UHF-Ghislain%20Guyon.pdf%20
Suggested text:
France also has in operation a UHF wind profiler at Nice Côte D’Azur Airport.

5.1.43 This section is on wind profilers. Add information on the Juneau Airport Wind System (often referred to as JAWS, however, the Manual already defines JAWS for the Joint Airport Weather Studies, thus the acronym is avoided in the proposed text below).
Suggested text at the end of the wind profiler section 5.1.43:
Wind profilers are used in the Juneau Airport Wind System developed by NCAR and the FAA (reference: Meuller, Steven et al., 2004: Juneau Airport Wind Hazard Alert System Display Products. AMS 11th Conference on Aviation, Range and Aerospace Meteorology, Hyannis). This system warns of various types of turbulence in certain regions near the Juneau airport. A combination of 7 wind sensors, 4 of which are located on mountain or hill tops, and 3 wind profilers were used to formulate regressions based on aircraft measurements of turbulence. Turbulence alerts are given based on the regressions developed and is expressed in text as well as on the geographic display by filling in the appropriate polygon with the alert level colour. The alert categories are: NONE, moderate turbulence for a B737-type aircraft (MDT B737), and severe turbulence for B737-type aircraft (SVR B737), which are updated every minute. These alerts may be expressed in terms of the Eddy Dissipation Rate (EDR) when the ICAO defines the EDR threshold values for moderate and severe turbulence for approach and take-off phases of flight. Other features on the prototype display include runway head and cross winds, profiler winds every 500 feet to an altitude of 6 000 feet, and sensor wind speed and direction that includesinclude the recent peak wind. Commissioning of this system in the form mentioned above is unlikely because the turbulence warning performance did not meet FAA expectations. As a result, wind anemometers on the mountain tops and at the airport will be used by the airlines as a guide to turbulent conditions based on the operations specifications published for Juneau.The Juneau Airport Wind System is scheduled to be commissioned by the FAA in 2008.

5.1.48 3rd line of equations: where F = Ůx/g + w/Va
Suspect a sign error for the w/Va term. This term should be negative because in a microburst, Ůx increases, thus the F-factor increases and the total energy decreases. In a downdraft, w is negative causing a double negative and positive F-factor, which is a total energy decrease as well.
Another reference that describes the F-factor with the negative w/Va term is, “Numerical Simulations of Gust Front / Microburst Collision Dynamics”, by Leigh Orf of the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of North Carolina Asheville.

http://redrock.ncsa.uiuc.edu/AOS/publications/SLS02/orf.gfmb.pdf#search=%22F%20factor%20wind%20shear%22
Suggested text:
where F = Ůx/g - w/Va

5.1.51 last paragraph 1st sentence: The operational requirements approved by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission in 1982 and reproduced in Appendix 1 could only be fully met by airborne forward-looking wind shear warning equipment.
In the early-mid 1990s, airlines in the United States expected to have forward looking wind shear systems on 40% of all turbine-powered airplanes by 2007 (source: The Integrated Wind Shear Systems Cost Benefit and Deployment Study written by Martin Marietta – 1994). According to one major airline, only 12% (44/376) of all turbine-powered airplanes have forward-looking wind shear systems (source: Tom Fahey, NWA).

New information: Two major airlines and all regional airlines are well below the expected equipage rates. Used data from a recent report (Weber, Cho, Robinson and Evans, 2007: Analysis of Operational Alternatives to the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), MIT/LL, FAA Project Report ATC-332) and information on regional airline sizes. There is a ceiling of acquisition because regional airlines are largely comprised of regional jets which currently can not acquire forward-looking wind shear systems due to their size. This ceiling is approximately 2/3 of all aircraft and should be adjusted to the growth of regional airlines in relation to major airlines.

Therefore, only 1/312% of a major U.S. airline fleet meets the operational requirements approved by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission in 1982. That is, provide the pilot with a timely warning and the information necessary to safely maintain the desired flight path or the action to take to avoid it (Appendix 1, 3-a).
Suggested text:
The operational requirements approved by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission in 1982 and reproduced in Appendix 1 could only be fully met by airborne forward-looking wind shear warning equipment. In 2006, approximately 1/3 of in 10 aircraft meet this requirement (combination of sources, MIT/LL and personal researchreference is only to one major U.S. air carrier; however, it represents the current deployment of airborne forward-looking wind shear systems) with a current acquisition ceiling of 2/3.

5.2.13 last sentence: Otherwise, in warnings (especially those derived manually) wind shear “intensity” will continue to be stated in airspeed (kt) loss/gain over a suitable scale length such as 1 km and in the case of strong vertical components, simply as “microburst”.
Most ground-based wind shear systems use a scale length of 1-4 km in calculating the estimated airspeed loss/gain.
Suggested text:
…over a suitable scale length from 1-4 km…

5.3.15 At some aerodromes, notably in the United States, an LLWAS has been installed (see 5.1.7 to 5.1.14). In these circumstances local arrangements have been made to pass system-derived wind shear alerts from ATS units to aircraft. When a significant shear is detected (30 km/h (15-kt) vector difference) between a perimeter anemometer and the centre-field anemometer, an alert is sounded and both wind values are displayed and passed to the aircraft. Information on the actual vector difference is not passed to aircraft. Examples of such reports are as follows:
WIND SHEAR (ALERT) CENTRE FIELD WIND 270 DEGREES 20 KNOTS WEST BOUNDARY WIND 180 DEGREES 25 KNOTS”; or
WIND SHEAR (ALERT) ALL QUADRANTS CENTRE FIELD WIND 210 DEGREES 14 KNOTS WEST BOUNDARY WIND 140 DEGREES 22 KNOTS”.
This whole section is not relevant to the majority of LLWAS in the United States. As mentioned in previous sections, the LLWAS was upgraded to an LLWAS-NE at airports with a TDWR (9 & 1 standalone LLWAS-NE at Juneau)9) and to an LLWAS-RS (40) at airports without a TDWR. There are 34 systems left in the United States (Las Vegas, Tucson, Albuquerque, El Paso) that follow this description in 5.3.15 and plan to be decommissioned in the near future.
This section may be relevant to other LLWAS outside of the United States and may be of importance from a historical perspective.
Suggested text for the opening paragraph:
At some aerodromes, an original LLWAS still exists (see 5.1.7 to 5.1.14).

In reference to the 3rd sentence: The LLWAS vector difference is not restricted to the centre-field anemometer.


Suggested text for 3rd sentence:
When a significant shear is detected (30 km/h (15-kt) vector difference) between two anemometers, an alert is sounded and both wind values are displayed and passed to the aircraft.

GLOBAL SEARCH: The United States and Hong Kong use wind shear alerts (versus warnings) generated by automatic ground wind shear detection systems. The proposed amendment (2007) to Annex 3 addresses this fact. Therefore, the term warning may be replaced with alert in reference to ground wind shear detection systems referenced throughout this document.

— — — — — — — —






The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2016
send message

    Main page